The Las Vegas Raiders are buzzing with speculation over Fernando Mendoza, touted as the future star for the team. Yet, whether he will step into the spotlight immediately remains uncertain.

NFL Insider Ian Rapoport suggests that should Mendoza deliver impressive performances early, it might compel the Raiders to appoint him as their starting quarterback next season.

“We’ve witnessed scenarios where teams initially plan for a rookie to simply learn from the sidelines,” Rapoport explained during the NFL Insiders show on NFL Network. “But what if Mendoza accelerates onto the scene with exceptional prowess? Teams could decide, ‘This talent is too good to sideline.’ While it might not be in the opening game, this shift could occur swiftly in the season, which would be fantastic news for the Raiders.”

The NFL has evolved past the era when quarterbacks spent a year on the bench. The last time the No. 1 overall draft pick took a back seat was in 2018, when the Cleveland Browns chose Baker Mayfield.

Seizing his moment, Mayfield took over following Tyrod Taylor’s injury and cemented his place as the starting quarterback, never looking back.

Since Mendoza was taken No.1 overall by the Raiders during last years NFL Draft, the expectation has been he will serve as a backup to Kirk Cousins, who will be a mentor to Mendoza.

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters

Mendoza is coming off a historic season at Indiana, where he was crowned as the winner of the Heisman Trophy and also helped lead the Hoosiers to their first College Football National Championship, after throwing 3,535 yards, 41 touchdowns, and 6 interceptions, while completing 72% of his passes.

If Mendoza can show the Raiders the same type of success he had at Indiana and becomes the starting quarterback of the team, Rapoport said it could make things a little bit awkward in the Las Vegas quarterback room, but it would also be good news, as the number one pick would be “Exactly who they’d hope he would be.”

Tom Brady and Logan Paul reignited their simmering rivalry with an explosive encounter at Fanatics Fest on Friday night, a spectacle that follows months of speculation about a potential WWE showdown between the two.

Captured on video by the Daily Mail, the confrontation began with Brady and Paul exchanging fiery words at the glamorous New York City gathering, culminating in the NFL icon losing his composure.

In a dramatic turn, Brady smacked Paul on the head, prompting NBA star Karl-Anthony Towns and a vigilant security guard to swiftly step in and separate the two.

Even after the physical altercation, Paul, a prominent WWE figure, was visibly agitated, emphatically gesturing toward Brady as Towns attempted to defuse the tension.

Prior to this fiery face-off, Brady and Paul had already clashed verbally, revisiting contentious issues from their previous encounter at the Fanatics Flag Football Classic event held earlier in the year.

They had a couple of run-ins on the field that day, but it was the online personality who had the last laugh after his Wildcats FFC team defeated Brady’s Founders FFC.

‘It’s just nuts to me how Tom Brady couldn’t come back from us winning the flag football game that he said he was going to beat me,’ Paul said while sitting on the same panel as the seven-time Super Bowl winner at Fanatics Fest.

‘I just want to say it… never forget. Never forget the YouTuber beat the football player.’

‘There were a lot of cheap shots in that game too,’ Brady responded.

After the viral slap, Paul posted on X: ‘This happened bc I was roasting Tom for beating him in flag football. And he tries to smack me ?? Horrible example for the kids Aura -100 + Blocked. With a torn tricep’.

Brady quoted his post and wrote: ‘I tried America… will try again next time I see this nerd.’

Brady became embroiled in a shocking beef with Paul after he mocked the wrestler’s athletic ability during a guest appearance on his ‘Impaulsive’ podcast in February. He dismissed Paul’s athlete chops as ‘cute’ while claiming he lacks the toughness of football players.

In response, Paul argued that he could beat the majority of NFL athletes in a fight – a statement which sparked fierce debate – before they ramped up their rivalry at the flag football event.

Many have questioned how real Paul and Brady’s apparent disdain for one another is, instead rubbishing it as an attempt to generate attention.

The Daily Mail revealed back in March that, according to an insider, Paul and Brady are only playing on the feud to promote a potential WWE storyline.

The former New England Patriots and Tampa Bay Buccaneers quarterback was expected to appear at WrestleMania earlier this year, only to not show up at the wrestling company’s showpiece event.

Yet on Thursday, Brady revealed he is waiting for WWE president Nick Khan to give him a call about making an appearance.

He said at Fanatics Fest: ‘I feel like, I’m retired from football, have the opportunity to go out there and showcase that I’m still a little bit of an athlete. My boy Gronk’s done it, I’ve seen Logan Paul do it. I think I could get in there for at least one match, right?’

Brady has been keeping himself busy since retiring from the NFL in 2023. He is preparing to enter the third year of his decade-long, $375million contract with Fox after venturing into broadcasting for the league.

Shortly after joining Fox, he also became an NFL owner in highly controversial fashion. His deal to acquire a minority stake in the Las Vegas Raiders sparked uproar in 2024 over what many argued was a conflict of interest amid his commentary role.

When asked if he’d want to be a good guy or a ‘heel’ in the wrestling world, Brady insisted: ‘It’s such an easy choice. I’m a bad guy. I’ve always been a bad guy.

‘I mean, I feel like when our teams did really well, I would always go into these stadiums and I would feel that… When you go on the road and you’ve had some success in the NFL, they don’t like you. It’s an incredible feeling when you work that entire day to basically try to send the crowd home early.’

California’s lenient approach to crime continues to spark controversy, but a newly filed lawsuit by a victims’ rights organization is aiming to halt these reforms.

The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation has initiated legal action against the California Board of Parole Hearings. The lawsuit challenges regulations that could potentially ease the path to early release for some of the state’s most notorious criminals.

This pushback is warranted. Proposed changes by the parole board could see some of California’s most violent offenders, who are serving life sentences, gain their freedom sooner than expected.

According to the foundation and its supporters within law enforcement, the revised rules could allow thousands of inmates—convicted of crimes like murder, torture, and offenses against children—to become eligible for early parole.

Is there truly any rational, law-abiding Californian who desires such an outcome?

How many more victims would fall prey to these thousands of felons, should some be released? 

Among the convicts potentially eligible to walk are some serving “life without the possibility of parole,” the foundation says.

So the crimes were so egregious that a court determined the offenders should be confined for life, and the state parole board might say, in effect, “never mind, we know better than the judge and jury”?

That’s galling.

It would also be a gut punch to victims, and a broken promise to society, to free heinous criminals who –– we all were promised –– would be safely locked away for life.

The legal foundation says the parole board exceeded its authority by making such a sweeping change to the state’s legal system without either legislative or voter assent.

Good point.

State officials wouldn’t dare put this scheme before voters, and even soft-on-crime legislators might not go this far.

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters

So an unelected board issues regulations while the left moans about prison crowding.

But if prisons are packed to bursting, that argues for more prison space –– not the wanton release of felons who probably, based on recidivism rates, will go find new victims.

This move at its core is not about prison crowding, or the pursuit of justice, or “evidence-based policies,” as Gov. Gavin Newsom put it. 

And it’s certainly not about public safety.

The culprit, as ever, is probably ideology.

These days, it’s en vogue on the far left to treat criminals as victims. The idea: Those who harm others are somehow deserving of compassion, leniency and, for those with long rap sheets, 57th (or so) chances. 

Also: The entire 21-member parole board is composed of appointees of Democrat Govs. Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom.

There was a time when public safety transcended party and ideology, when both parties saw the sense in locking up the worst offenders and keeping them caged where they can’t hurt innocents.

No longer. From defund the police to no jail for thieves to early prison releases for felons, many on the left are now, for all intents and purposes, pro-criminal.

So good for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.

Someone needs to stand up for victims and innocents while the parole board and governor ease up on the perps.

True public safety comes from law and order. Not from leniency, misplaced compassion and far-left wishful thinking.